Is there any circumstance in which Ad Hominem is a legitimate

>>734174574

When you believe the Earth is flat. Then it's just free range and totally acceptable. The suffering that they would feel is definitely dulled because of their undeveloped brains, so technically it's okay because they are less human than norma people.

>>734174760
I still feel like that's a cop out. You can still argue them about it

towards rednecks and hillbillies

>>734174961
No you cannot. They reject science. You cannot argue with somebody who cherry picks and rejects reality. You can only mock them and revel in your objective mental superiority.

>>734174574
Under no circumstance. Fallacies are always fallacies.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

>>734175274
P.S. Conclusions can be true even if the premises are fallacious, but that happens independently of the premises.

>>734175274

Shut up queer.

You're just saying that cause you're jealous.

Also the first sentence wasn't a complete one, so you're automatically wrong.

>>734174574

Child molester
Rapist
Domestic abuser
Terrorist

Anything where "character witness" is legally allowed in court.

As hominems are legitimate once you've given someone the benefit of a presumption of good faith and intelligence.

Once they've proved otherwise, feel free to insult them. Debate is no longer possible.

>>734175405
Dont get all meta and ironic with me boy

File: 1454038333478.jpg (26KB, 251x414px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 251x414px

>>734174574
Yes.

In fact, assuming any logical fallacy is an immediate disqualifier of an argument is a fallacy.

No, it is never a legitimate argument. Going ad hominem against someone means you are completely ignoring their position and attacking their character. If other people are on your side, you haven't won the argumwnt, youve just bullied them.

>>734176971
If they haven't got an argument in any real sense or are deliberately misrepresenting yours, debate falls down. You can do whatever you like then

>>734174574
If you're having an actual argument in front of real people then no. It's just a complication of telling them to shut up, which is the weakest possible level of discourse and can only undermine your own position. You're showing weakness, insecurity and immaturity.

You can use Ad Hominem to emphasize their use of Ad Hominem and show them how retarded they are being, though they could call that a Strawman.

>>734174574
What did you call me?

File: aris.jpg (258KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1200x1200px

>>734174574
>Is there any circumstance in which Ad Hominem is a legitimate argument?
yes, but only if you understand the logic of argumentation. once you understand the rationale of an argument can you effectively wield any tool in the argumentation arsenal

That's true, but not relevant to OPs question. If the "debate falls down" there's no longer any structure for either sides' argument to have legitimacy in. Just waiting for someone to throw the first punch

>>734177626
>>734177118
Missed the tag

People miss what an ad hom actually means: you're using your knowledge of this persons OTHER positions to inform how much you should believe THIS position. For example, if the person is wrong on issues A, B, and C, you know there is a higher probability that they are also wrong on D.

There's a bit of ugly tribalism in there too, but tribalism is useful at times.

Arguments only exist in a vacuum online and in debate club.

>>734174574
If you are arguing that a person is a dumbfuck and are right then yeah but you must provide proof of dumbfuckery

>>734174574
no. that's why it's a fallacy.

>>734174574

No. Not really. Maybe in response to an appeal to personal authority -- but that is itself a fallacious argument and should be refuted on that ground, rather than taken seriously enough to make the person the point of argument.

>>734175405
That's beautiful.

>>734178001
That's a form of it yes. If I were to say "you're wrong in your characterization of this fallacy, because youre the kind of person that goes on 4chan and are thus retarded" would also be Ad Hominem, without having to mention any point youd made at all. Using that argument on 4chan though would be a new can of worms though. Am I right, but a hypocrite?

>>734178001

That is NOT what ad hominem means. Ad hominem is NOT an attack on improper authority or weak authority. It is an improper diversion of argument from the topic into personal attack.

If a person is not a good authority, then their conclusions can be disregarded without additional grounds or proof. However, that disregard is a defense in an argument, not an offense -- and ad hominem is always an (improper) offense.